Weather

Current Conditions
-13.2 C
Clear
Today's Forecast
-14 C
Clear
Sponsored by Highland Ford

News And Views

Classifieds

Announcements

Entertainment

Shop Local

More Local

Search The Web

Google Search

Editorials

View Room Comments for Tuesday, May. 13 2014

Tuesday, May 13, 2014   by: The Soap BoxWelcome to the SooToday.com View Room. This editorial feature is for you to post comments. To comment on a specific news story please post your comment directly under the news story.
Comments
53
Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of SooToday.com. If you see an abusive post, please click the link beside the post to report it.
dadal 5/13/2014 6:12:48 AM Report

WHOOT! First poster for today.

Anyone else making that poor woman trying to sell Sault Star subscriptions hide in fear??? Was in Basics and she approached me with a free newspaper and tried to sell me a subscription.

Big mistake.

I "nicely" and "politely" let her know how I do not and will not suppost any company/busness that causes job loss due to moving so called local offices to another city. And how I have maintained this stance with CTV news, Betrice Dairy and other past situations.

I also "nicely" stated that approaching local residence for sales AFTER the news release was a VERY bad move by a company that clearly cares only for their profits and shows true insensitivity to the local community.

Did I mention she approached me as I entered the store? And did I mention how she "ducked" behind her little counter and I was leaving?

I know not her fault she has to sell that rag. But I hope she can tell them why her sales are down.
Mr. Poster 5/13/2014 6:46:34 AM Report

The Star has never made that announcement(I get the paper and NOTHING has been said). It was the UNION who stated all of the changes and NOT in the paper. Lets hope the Star comes clean...soon...and tells us what is going on.
Claudius 5/13/2014 7:23:52 AM Report

Morning Mr. Poster

The Star printed a small "Note to Reader"" on page 2, Thursday May 8.

It mentioned the closing of the production operations in the first sentence and continued "Content staff and advertising are not affected. We recognize the community's concern, but are confident the production of the paper and on the screen will not be affected."

I was a little taken aback as, to me, they seemed to misunderstand why the community might be concerned.
ROLAND_ROLLY 5/13/2014 7:26:58 AM Report

There is a simple solution if the Sault Star cuts these jobs....stop buying the rag. Also, other business should stop advertising dollars.

BTW, I haven't bought the paper in 10 years so I really don't care one way or the other. Just a thought, no one wrote a letter or could have cared less when Liquidation World closed up and put 10+ employees out of work.

Our councillor didn't even know it closed a month later......
theprotector 5/13/2014 7:40:30 AM Report

This is true however 10 part time.min wage jobs isnt as concerning as losing the production of a local news paper. Not only production staff but many others such as staff writers and reporters over the past couple of years.
theprotector 5/13/2014 7:40:30 AM Report

This is true however 10 part time.min wage jobs isnt as concerning as losing the production of a local news paper. Not only production staff but many others such as staff writers and reporters over the past couple of years.
Mr. Poster 5/13/2014 7:41:05 AM Report

Claudius...thanks...I guess I missed that little article. The loss of jobs would seem to be of little concern to the paper. I feel badly for those employees who lost their jobs.
Claudius 5/13/2014 8:00:48 AM Report

Roland_Rolly

I hear you, Roland! I, too, was sad when L.W. closed up.

Nothing could save it, though. All of their locations in Canada were closed. Their new owner, Big Lots, who purchased them in 2011, decided to pull completely out of Canada, shrinking the company overall.

It's a tough market for brick and mortar retailers right now.



crasher14 5/13/2014 8:14:24 AM Report

Being a business person, I cannnot believe what the Sault Star did six weeks before Christmas. I live in the Eastend, where I would want my flyers to get to every house in this city.... But would really want the Eastend to get them. Six weeks before Christmas, I did not receive any flyers, and tried to call the Sault Star ten times. Also, I could not believe how fustrating it was to even call the Sault Star. Anyways, as people shared with me.... Just go on line and get the flyers, and just give up on the Sault Star.
ROLAND_ROLLY 5/13/2014 9:12:15 AM Report

I realize retail is a tough go now. My point is simply:

City council did NOTHING to try to stop the closing ( letters etc.) but they are trying to dissuade Sault Star, Lottery Corp. etc. and whoever is fashionable at the time.

Seems that they choose who they try to help. Far as I'm concerned, I feel for the employees but the facts are simply there is not enough profit for the Sault Star to print here time to stop buying the local rag (boycott. I'm sure that Sault This Week will be next on the block

Wisenheimer 5/13/2014 9:25:08 AM Report

Hudda go, beat up on some poor woman trying to make a living selling subscriptions.
Sun Media will do whatever is required to stay afloat.
Daily delivery of the Star goes to about 20 eighty year olds. Most others are more concerned with Kim Kardashian's ever expanding derriere and sending annoying texts.
Claudius 5/13/2014 9:30:08 AM Report

City Council must have heard you, Roland! Hope its not too little, too late.
Wild Turkey 5/13/2014 9:34:50 AM Report

Cancelled my home delivery, also.That was before I heard they were leaving town.Reason?----No coloured comic strips on weekend anymore!!!!!Good humour is becoming harder and harder to find.What's next? Any bets it's the dual school board thing?
The star will likely come up with a deal for "new Subscribers".I might get back in then.
soowat 5/13/2014 11:05:12 AM Report

The Sault Star died shortly after I quit working there. Now they've got rid of so many other employees that there is nobody left to give it a decent burial.
soowat 5/13/2014 11:21:08 AM Report

Toronto Sun's top headline:

" Jilly's strip club to close "

National Post's top headline:

"A minority win the worst thing for an economy as broken as Ontario's"

The first headline is drivel,the second concerns an issue of substance.
Sault Star is owned by same company that owns the Toronto Sun. That has to be
embarrassing to the one employee left at the Sault Star.
notpc 5/13/2014 12:03:23 PM Report

Here's an article with information in it you probably won't see on CBC or CTV anytime soon.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/12/Antarctic-Sea-Ice-at-All-Time-Record-Levels

If the article had reported all time low ice levels, it would be front page news and touted as proof of global warming. But because it is an all time high, all we get is silence. Or seeing CBC's Anna Maria Tremonti visiting Antarctica and convincing us that contrary to what experts have recorded, Antarctica is actually melting.

This cooling of Antarctica, along with the lack of global warming for the past 17 years will now just be attributed to the new catchword, "climate change" in which anything that happens climate wise can be seen to be evidence.

Just thought I'd wake up this forum a bit with something a bit controversial, as it's been pretty quiet the last few days or so.

Hamguy 5/13/2014 12:04:32 PM Report

Is it only me or does anyone else think that there isn't much hype on the upcoming Ont Election ? I don't even know who's running in my riding ( Algoma-Manitoulin ). I hope this isn't a sign of what the voter turnout is going to be.
theprotector 5/13/2014 1:20:08 PM Report

this area cannot afford to lose anyore jobs!!! We are more than double the national unemployed rate
Snobank 5/13/2014 1:20:10 PM Report

I'vw noticed a few posters, (not today,) complaining how the postings have dropped since the moderator has removed some of the more offensive postings. I agree, but and like it. I would much rather see fewer postings that have some substance or insight than the constant puerile postings which generated many more responses of the same ilk.

Some people claimed they were being forced to be politically correct. After thinking about it I came to the conclusion that "politically correct," is just a buzzword for "I want to be able to say whatever I want without getting called out for it." In a civilized culture, that's hardly a reasonable position to take.

Now it's up to us to generate some decent comments and debates to justify SooToday keeping this space open.
bounder 5/13/2014 1:27:55 PM Report

Hudak and Fremlin have a goal all right, it's not for us, the public , just a personal gain.
Who will you vote for the NDP who took a stand against the Liberals and don't have a hope in hell of having a majority , or Hudak and his job creation nightmare.
Not much choice is there.
mallet 5/13/2014 1:34:30 PM Report

Snobank..

I read "Politically Correct" as being, I cannot say what I think without being called on it. I believe that being P C means you cannot be critical of a situation because some may find it Racist or Offensive even if it is fact or truth. Today many people have very thin skins and cannot take advice or criticism without rancour. One cannot critize if a cultural or tradition is involved in any other ethnic group other than your own, and to me this is the lowest rung on the ladder of censorship...
Wicket 5/13/2014 1:39:57 PM Report

Mallet - how true, lots of censorship on many news articles and posts on here. Name calling and bullying are unacceptable but to not be able to express one's opinion ......
Mr. Poster 5/13/2014 1:46:27 PM Report

How come none of the media outlets have shown us a picture of Rod Fremlin.So far flash bulb Davies has no worries.
Mr. Poster 5/13/2014 1:47:24 PM Report

oops meant flash bulb DAVID.
Snobank 5/13/2014 3:52:42 PM Report

I'm going to take a chance and post a long one here. In it I've adapted and edited another writer's thoughts because he writes what I believe with great clarity. (I'll provide you with the source if you are interested.):

Your Freedom of Speech does not remove anyone else's freedom to edit or remove material they find offensive from a site that they own or control.

I. Censorship is a Distortion
First, I think it is worth reminding everyone that in discussions that begin with censorship, the charge itself is almost always not reflective of reality. Many argue, for example, that the SooToday is instituting a policy of censorship based on political correctness in the very public blue room.
Ultimately, censorship is rarely used in situations where it actually applies in these debates, in large part because censorship almost never occurs in these debates. Real censorship looks like this:
You're threatened with or put in prison because of what you say or write by the government or someone working for that government.
You're threatened with or a victim of violence because of what you say or write by the same.
You're preventing from accessing avenues of speech by the same. For example: if you run an online newspaper and the government shuts down your Internet or destroys your computers.
Or any other situation in which the government directly interferes with your ability to freely exercise your speech (setting aside, of course, cases of libel, etc.).

Not surprisingly, none of this applies in SooToday's case.

II. Censorship is a Distraction
Since this charge relies on casting not only its initial terminology (censorship), but also the events in question (the removal of offensive postings) within a perspective which requires absolute adherence to the first and absolute rejection of the latter (on the terms of the poster alone), there's little room for an actual debate here. In fact, the distortion of censorship (applying it in a scenario where suddenly "editing" becomes "censorship") is a distraction. In vociferously defending this notion of "free speech" in a context in which it definitely does not apply, those who hold this position betray not only their ignorance of the terms, but also a profound disinterest in debate about the actual issue.

It's clear that "censorship" is merely a simple tool to get to a point without actually articulating the real issue. In other words, it's a distraction. By the definition of censorship I have already poked holes into in the previous section, it's absurd and false to use the term at all. Yet, in doing so, those who tow the censorship line engage in an almost deliberate act of obfuscation:

By some posters' definition, all publications which have any guidelines whatsoever are acts of censorship, which makes the definition meaningless, except that it reveals something which is at the heart of all of this: this isn't about actual censorship, but rather about what certain individuals don't think should be removed from the discourse in a specific and focused institution. It's about the *what,* not the action itself. "Censorship" is just the smokescreen being used to make this sound bigger than it really is, because it's far more difficult to justify why the SooToday *must* print the kinds of things they would like to see published without any restricting guidelines.

At best, censorship is just lazy argumentation here. It's a way of saying "here's the answer" without providing the reasons. It's the syllogism without sound premises. In focusing one's discourse on support for a censorship accusation, you really succeed in keeping the rest of us focused on that, too. And since it's utterly asinine as a claim, that means anything you might have said beneath it gets lost in the shuffle.

More importantly, arguing "censorship" stifles the ability to debate the issue at all. Those who argue against this position are labeled accordingly as "thought police" or "censors" or "fascists," terms which have emotional and cultural meaning that varies from person to person. There's almost no possibility of a reasoned debate when the terms of engagement have been so rigidly defined. Either you disagree with censorship or you don't...and if you don't, you're bad.

"Censorship" is also serves as a painfully simple way to attack one side of a debate without providing an actual argument.
steelworker 5/13/2014 4:10:15 PM Report

Snobank: politically correct means "If I don't agree with what you say I will have you muzzled and ostracized to the nth degree". Some posters on this site were canned because if you had a different viewpoint than them they would resort to derogatory comments and actual threats of physical violence.
Claudius 5/13/2014 4:22:29 PM Report

I don't usually read long e-posts, but I did this one. It was thoughtful and interesting. Thank you!

Wild Turkey 5/13/2014 4:26:27 PM Report

Do you want to "play by the rules"?Simply read the guidelines that are outlined at the bottom of the View Room comments.These are simple, realistic requests in order to maintain some semblance of civility.Hurling outlandish insults is not very civil now is it?.Deleting unwarranted comments is not censorship, it is simply reminding people to"play by the rules"
Snobank 5/13/2014 4:38:51 PM Report

Steelworker, I agree that that is the way "politically correct" is often misused. In fact I think it is misused far more often than it is used properly. This means that in the past few years it has taken on a definitely negative tone and inference. It has now become a form of insult.

In it's original usage it meant to not use derogatory terms about someone for somethings they have no control. Examples might be race, gender and so on. Unfortunately a lot of people bray that something is politically correct or incorrect depending on whether they agree or not.We see this in some of the silly complaints to the Human Rights Commission. These trivial complaints often taint the reality of the valid complaints.

An interesting example of how words can change their meaning is the use of the word "awful". If someone from the middle ages was asked how they liked a play and they said it made them feel awful, they meant it made them feel full of awe. Nowadays the same answer would mean just about the opposite. Who knows what it will mean 500 years from now?

Language can be tricky.
Wicket 5/13/2014 4:54:25 PM Report

For clarification on my post, I was referring to censorship by not allowing any posts at all on specific news items. I understand that comments get out of hand, are derogatory, slanderous and could cause a lawsuit towards Sootoday (and I guess the poster as SooToday could identify an individual). I don't believe that SooToday is being politically correct, I think they are just protecting themselves, but at the expense of alienating (decent posts by) concerned posters.
Snobank 5/13/2014 5:06:24 PM Report

Wicket, I agree. I guess the question has to be asked, is this site of any real value or use to anyone if it can't exist without a barrage of insults and repetitive arguments ad infinitum?

Maybe it should die a quiet death. The number and quality of the postings over the next little while will be a good indication.

I just self-edited a remark about the red room. ;-)
bounder 5/13/2014 5:28:05 PM Report

As the old saying goes when the crap hits the fan, duck.
Zing 5/13/2014 5:46:43 PM Report

steelworker

I am so happy that you have never used derogatory comments and actual threats of physical violence.

Wait...Oh never mind.
Zing 5/13/2014 5:48:33 PM Report

Wicket

This site per-judges comments before they are made just to save time.
bounder 5/13/2014 5:58:24 PM Report

Zinger big ten.
Snobank 5/13/2014 6:31:03 PM Report

Seerms to me that both theprotector and steelworker have upped their game.
Snobank 5/13/2014 6:32:39 PM Report

Aren't I Mr. Positive today.
Pink Peony 5/13/2014 7:14:12 PM Report

It's too bad that some don't seem to be able to accept that everybody is different, unique. We each have our own opinions on things. Too bad we don't always embrace those differences but instead we choose to elevate ourselves above others (as if we're some how better) just because they don't think the same as ourselves. I like listening to public radio because often times there are discussions on things where there are very different views but they discuss the topic at hand without taking it down to a personal level and criticizing each other.
statusquo 5/13/2014 7:46:50 PM Report

Snobank,

Nice post about censorship and political correctness.

Political correctness is not censorship , but a necessary tool to keep the bigots in check. PC has however been taken too far in some instances where anything that even hints as being racially motivated gets shut down.

Certain topics are so sensitive that people have come to believe that self-censorship is a sign of tolerance given the racial suspicions that lurk throughout society like a bad dream.

Do you remember "Jimmy The Greek" in the late eighties and what he said?
He alluded that black athletes are better due to having been bread during slavery for physical prowess. Well, he got fired.
Was that a racist statement? Is there a grain of truth in it? Why are black athletes overrepresented in athletics and excel for the most part over their white counterparts?
Is it racist to even ask this question?
I hope you see where I am going with this.

Can I even dare to challenge the orthodoxy that all meaningful differences between populations are cultural?
Does evolution play a role? Do genetics? I personally think it's a mix from all three... cultural, evolutionary and genetics.

Can those questions even be asked and debated in a reasonable way without running the risk of being labelled a racist?

No doubt you must have seen how certain posters come out of the woodwork whenever a Native topic comes up. That is why we have to have political correctness enforced. The total lack of historical understanding and naked racism is blatantly obvious.


lookaround 5/13/2014 7:49:14 PM Report

Snobank there is a distinction between freedom of speech and just plan being vile. Don't you agree Steelworker ? After all you have made some sickening comments bordering on being downright obnoxious.
statusquo 5/13/2014 7:55:16 PM Report

Pink,

I agree to a point.

What if the opinion is blatantly racist?

What if his/her religion , creed...world view espouses the concept that women are a man's property...that certain lifestyles deserve the death penalty, that genital mutilation is a necessary practice to please a deity?

What if someone thinks that "sparing the rod spoils the child" and acts upon it with gusto?

Should we still play nice and "accept" and tolerate the differences?


flyhawk25 5/13/2014 7:56:37 PM Report

Right now on this site we are still finding a collective personna if you will.
The domination by some former shouters has been replaced by more reasoned and polite dialogue.
I think that is a good thing.
Pink Peony 5/13/2014 8:19:14 PM Report

Status, Great post @ 7:46. Regarding your post after that, no to all! When I posted, I wasn't thinking of extremes like you mentioned. It is nice to be able to talk to people who have different viewpoints, backgrounds, experiences, etc. though and try to understand and appreciate the differences. It's nice to have discussions about things without tearing each other apart. There will always be some who are extreme and a line does need to be drawn...
Pink Peony 5/13/2014 8:25:00 PM Report

I really miss playing cards with people face to face. You know like sitting at the same table, handling the cards, shuffling and dealing them instead of clicking on the mouse and typing a message.
statusquo 5/13/2014 8:30:34 PM Report

pink,

Cards eh?


Strip poker?

Pink Peony 5/13/2014 8:42:47 PM Report

I was thinking before I refreshed the page that I wanted to say that for those areas that are still uncivilized, many can be civilized but it takes time just as it took time for "us" to become civilized, but there will always be some who will take a little longer to civilize. Then I refreshed the page and read your post Status...
statusquo 5/13/2014 9:28:01 PM Report


Whats wrong with poker?

(smiley face)
mallet 5/13/2014 9:33:16 PM Report


Status Quo...

But isn't that the point, we are controlled by what we say, I can remember when farmers used to say they were spreading cowshit, then it became manure, and then fertiliser, because it did not sound "nice" to say cowshit!! The same goes for non whites, they were N's and then blacks and coloureds and now African Americans, but it is all in the name of Political Correctness. And the thing is that it is backed by the law and the Human Rights folks now. A lot depends on the nature of a relationship and the personal interaction, you can see if a person is being obnoxious by the look on their face when talking to them, but behind a nickname and computer what you say would certainly not be tolerated face to face...
debo 5/13/2014 9:47:22 PM Report

Well for better or worse I will respond to your post notpc. I am not going to change your view nor am I going to bother trying ... I will however dispute some of your statements.

- while you state that you don't expect to see the topic of expanding Antarctic sea ice being covered anytime soon by CTV or CBC ..
A quick inspection of both their sites showed the topic was addressed in the last 24hrs!

- Anna Maria Tremonti was reporting on the documentary "Melting Ice" ... a seemingly well-researched examination of the melting ice on CONTINENTAL Antarctica ... She was NOT talking about the ANNUAL cyclic expansion/retreat of the sea ice that surrounds the Antarctic continent.

- the phrase climate change is not a "new catchword" the idea that somehow the "NAME" was recently changed is a falsity. The last two letters in IPCC... Climate Change ... the panel was formed in 1988. But the use of the phrase "climate change" can be found in scientific papers dating back into the 1950's

- the Breitbart article you referenced contains a link to the NSIDC... the scientific body that authored the report.... AND a full reading of that report would show the reader that all you did was pull a couple of sentences out of the article (a la Breitbart) WITHOUT CONTEXT to give credence to your preconceived opinion.

If you're going to wake up the forum with some "controversial" topic... at least attempt to offer your view with some legitimacy.

I don't care if you espouse a view contrary to that of the vast majority of scientists working in the field ... but come with factual assertions to bolster your opinion.
statusquo 5/13/2014 10:05:56 PM Report

mallet,

"What's in name?"

You are correct that it's the context and the intent of using certain words that make them unacceptable.
I can think of a few that not too long ago were considered perfectly alright in psychiatry but are frowned upon today.
And it doesn't extend only to mere words but through the entire spectrum of human interactions and history.
Certain historical events cannot even be discussed or questioned without being labelled or shut down.




realitycheck 5/13/2014 10:44:19 PM Report

Debo:
Right on.
Snobank 5/13/2014 10:53:43 PM Report

I went to see the Spidey movie tonight so I'm late getting back to the ball game.

Statusquo asked a very discerning question, "Can I even dare to challenge the orthodoxy that all meaningful differences are cultural?" What a great loaded question that cuts to the heart of things.

In today's western sociological climate and considering all the ramifications I can think of, I would venture sadly that the answer is no. There's no opinion except one that you would be allowed to express without someone accusing you of racism. Rightly or wrongly it's a basic tenant of modern western society that we are of equal ability under the skin and to suggest that this belief could even be tested is wrong and unthinkable no matter how illogical that is. In other words we must accept this as a basic premise which you question aloud at your own peril. I'm not saying the belief that all races are of equal ability is right or wrong. I.m saying the politics of our society do not allow us to test this without being accused of racism.

Pink Peony is right that words do change meaning and change over time the type of emotive baggage they carry. I alluded to this earlier when talking about how awesome has reversed its meaning over the last 500 years. You can see this in the labeling of special needs individuals. Moron, for example, once had a specific meaning for a certain level of intellectual ability. It changed, became an insult, and is now no longer acceptable as a technical label. This is normal language evolution but we are now determined to freeze terminology in law even though it keeps evolving.

Just to complicate things even more, a lot of biologists argue that there is no such thing as race and psychologists argue that we cannot measure intelligence. We can only measure the ability to write an i.q. test. Who ever said coming to an agreement on anything was simple?
Zing 5/14/2014 2:25:04 AM Report

*PREJUDGED*

Sorry Spelly.
Comments
53
Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of SooToday.com. If you see an abusive post, please click the link beside the post to report it.
Advertising | Membership | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About SooToday.com | Contact Us | Feedback

Copyright ©2014 SooToday.com - All rights reserved